Abortion

[top gun]

I like to see ROE vs Wade overturned.

I'm not sure you would.

Because imagine the uproar over the Immigration Bill X 100. There would be such an uproar that the Congress would have to legislate a law making abortion legal once and for all. And if there was a Republican President that vetoed. That would most certainly be the last Republican President for the next few decades... and immediately the new law would go through. The country would not give the Republicans another chance to turn back time again.

 

[palerider]

I'm not sure you would.

Because imagine the uproar over the Immigration Bill X 100. There would be such an uproar that the Congress would have to legislate a law making abortion legal once and for all. And if there was a Republican President that vetoed. That would most certainly be the last Republican President for the next few decades... and immediately the new law would go through. The country would not give the Republicans another chance to turn back time again.

If roe were overturned, the issue would go back to the states. Some would outlaw it entirely, and most would allow abortion under some circumstances. I doubt that abortion on demand, as is the case now, could pass in even the most liberal states.

At least if congress passed a law denying unborns the right to live until such time as they were born, the 'T's would be crossed and the 'i's woud be dotted and the people would have had their say on the issue as opposed to a ruling by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges. Of course, you know as well as I that congress would not pass a law making abortion legal, they would leave it in the hands of the individual states.

 

[Coyote]

If roe were overturned, the issue would go back to the states. Some would outlaw it entirely, and most would allow abortion under some circumstances. I doubt that abortion on demand, as is the case now, could pass in even the most liberal states.

At least if congress passed a law denying unborns the right to live until such time as they were born, the 'T's would be crossed and the 'i's woud be dotted and the people would have had their say on the issue as opposed to a ruling by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges. Of course, you know as well as I that congress would not pass a law making abortion legal, they would leave it in the hands of the individual states.

Why not? The President passed a law outlawing so-called "partial birth" abortions...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When exactly, did I ever suggest torturing the friends and family of suspected terrorists? Talk about a fabricated attack.

Again and again you have touted the position of doing "whatever is required to win". I am simply trying to find out how far you are actually willing to go. If torturing a suspect's loved ones in front of him is more expeditious, why would you not do that? My question is no more fabricated than yours asking me if I would torture a few to save millions. Stop waffling and answer the question: If it works, will you do it? I answered it, I don't waffle around, I wouldn't do it. How about you?

Face it mare, your hypocrital position has been exposed. You rail against torture but support a fabricated right of women to murder a million unborns per year precicely by tearing them limb from limb, without the benefit of anesthesia I might add, for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

Nice try, Pale, but it won't work, I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If roe were overturned, the issue would go back to the states. Some would outlaw it entirely, and most would allow abortion under some circumstances. I doubt that abortion on demand, as is the case now, could pass in even the most liberal states.

At least if congress passed a law denying unborns the right to live until such time as they were born, the 'T's would be crossed and the 'i's woud be dotted and the people would have had their say on the issue as opposed to a ruling by 9 unelected, unaccountable judges. Of course, you know as well as I that congress would not pass a law making abortion legal, they would leave it in the hands of the individual states.

I find the connundrum of a pro-life/pro-torture stance interesting. Do you support the death penalty as well? That would make you pro-death/pro-life/pro-death by torture. Wow! I'm just not schizophrenic enough to encompass that kind of internal maelstrom.

 

[palerider]

Why not? The President passed a law outlawing so-called "partial birth" abortions...

Presidents don't pass laws. And the fact that the houses of congress did is clear evidence that they would not make abortion on demand the law of the land.

 

[palerider]

Again and again you have touted the position of doing "whatever is required to win". I am simply trying to find out how far you are actually willing to go. If torturing a suspect's loved ones in front of him is more expeditious, why would you not do that? My question is no more fabricated than yours asking me if I would torture a few to save millions. Stop waffling and answer the question: If it works, will you do it? I answered it, I don't waffle around, I wouldn't do it. How about you?

It is interesting to watch you fabricate an argument. I say what I mean and never attempt to hide my actual thoughts behind politically correct ones. If I thought that torturing the families of terror suspects was a good idea, I would have stated as much. If you knew your enemy, you would know that he believes that if we kill his family that they become martyrs and zoom right off to allah where they get a vw microbus full of virgins. He hopes his family dies at our hands and if he has to die, he hopes that it is either at our hands. Physical pain, however puts what he hopes in a secondary position to what is.

Nice try, Pale, but it won't work, I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions.

Spelling complaints? Please. So your position is that women should not have the choice to abort a pregnancy?

Are these your words?

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"My position is and has been that, while I do not think abortion is a good idea, I also think that it is not my place to tell other women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. It's between them and their God."


Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"A parasite lives off a host, by definition a fetus is parasitical, especially if it is unwanted. I'm not going to argue "supposed to be". All babies are "supposed to be" wanted and loved too, but we all know that ain't the case either."


Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"It's a complex issue with many personal definitions involved. As long as the fetus is not viable outside the mother's body, I think she should have the final say, once it is able to live on it's own, then it becomes a "person" in the legal sense and should have full protection of the law. Until it is viable it is in essence a parasite and the mother should have contol."

 

[vyo476]

It is interesting to watch you fabricate an argument. I say what I mean and never attempt to hide my actual thoughts behind politically correct ones. If I thought that torturing the families of terror suspects was a good idea, I would have stated as much. If you knew your enemy, you would know that he believes that if we kill his family that they become martyrs and zoom right off to allah where they get a vw microbus full of virgins. He hopes his family dies at our hands and if he has to die, he hopes that it is either at our hands. Physical pain, however puts what he hopes in a secondary position to what is.

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. You might have the resolve to withstand having bamboo splinters driven up under your fingernails and still not give in, but would you be able to sit an watch a loved one undergo the same fate (with no chance of reprieve unless you talk)? It does seem as though that is a more effective means of obtaining information through torture - the incentive is higher.

And Mare is not fabricating an argument. Mare has offered you a hypothetical situation that is 100% as plausible as the hypothetical situation you offered (the one about needing to get information out of suspects that would make or break a nuclear crisis).

 

[Chip]

A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as every heart knows and as substantiated by DNA and life science.

It's simply not a matter for rational conjecture.

Thus it is wrong to deprive that person of that person's inherent right to life for any reason, be it the inconvenience of another ... or the guiltiness of the so deprived.

The difference between anti-abortion and true pro-life is that the former deprives selected people on the life-time continuum of their one and only life based on criteria that is not theirs to judge but where judgment belongs solely to God ... and the latter makes no judgment, resigning in sadness to kill only in immediate self-defense of their's or another's very life.

 

[Coyote]

Presidents don't pass laws. And the fact that the houses of congress did is clear evidence that they would not make abortion on demand the law of the land.

I'm not sure. That was a Republican controled Congress. I think it highly unlikely that a total ban on abortion would be the law of the land either.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It is interesting to watch you fabricate an argument. I say what I mean and never attempt to hide my actual thoughts behind politically correct ones. If I thought that torturing the families of terror suspects was a good idea, I would have stated as much. If you knew your enemy, you would know that he believes that if we kill his family that they become martyrs and zoom right off to allah where they get a vw microbus full of virgins. He hopes his family dies at our hands and if he has to die, he hopes that it is either at our hands. Physical pain, however puts what he hopes in a secondary position to what is.

Spelling complaints? Please. So your position is that women should not have the choice to abort a pregnancy?

Are these your words?

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"My position is and has been that, while I do not think abortion is a good idea, I also think that it is not my place to tell other women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. It's between them and their God."


Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"A parasite lives off a host, by definition a fetus is parasitical, especially if it is unwanted. I'm not going to argue "supposed to be". All babies are "supposed to be" wanted and loved too, but we all know that ain't the case either."


Originally Posted by MareTranquility

"It's a complex issue with many personal definitions involved. As long as the fetus is not viable outside the mother's body, I think she should have the final say, once it is able to live on it's own, then it becomes a "person" in the legal sense and should have full protection of the law. Until it is viable it is in essence a parasite and the mother should have contol."

This is exactly why I don't want to reduce the abortion issue down to black and white, it's too complex and has too many ramifications to be made into an absolute yes or no situation. Go to the torture thread and respond to my questions to you there because they bear on this subject as well. They also bear on your attitude and ability to discuss this subject.

About the bolded section above: we were discussing torture, not torturing a specific group--and that group is not my enemy as you claim, sorry. As you note it would be necessary to change torture tactics depending on whom you wished to hurt. My position is that we should not do it under any circumstance because it dehumanizes us and has little historical usefulness.

Keep trying, Pale.
PS--Don't use colors like that, I'm color blind and can't read them due to the low contrast.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as every heart knows and as substantiated by DNA and life science.

It's simply not a matter for rational conjecture.

Thus it is wrong to deprive that person of that person's inherent right to life for any reason, be it the inconvenience of another ... or the guiltiness of the so deprived.

The difference between anti-abortion and true pro-life is that the former deprives selected people on the life-time continuum of their one and only life based on criteria that is not theirs to judge but where judgment belongs solely to God ... and the latter makes no judgment, resigning in sadness to kill only in immediate self-defense of their's or another's very life.

You have got to be a very young man.

 

[DrWho]

Oh dear....you knew I would have to answer this ....


Despite my inability to refute the logic of our last conversation - I still believe in a seperation of "person" and "human being". I do not think abortion should ever be something undertaken lightly and I do not think most women do so. However until the fetus has brainwaves, the mother's rights overide any presumed rights it might have. It's her body and no other person has any right to force an unwanted choice on her - whether it's the government of China forcing abortions on mothers to be or a group of strangers preventing abortion in the US.

I am joining this thread late so I apologize if I have missed anything pertinent.

From a solely scientific point of view one might look for a unique moment when there is more than just the physical life of the body and the unborn organism becomes a person. To do this one should probably support their position that the moment they happen to like is the one unique moment when the body becomes a person.

Again from a strictly scientific point of view the moment when it has a unique set of DNA could stand out. Everyones DNA separates them from everyone else as well as from every other creature on the planet. Even twins have slightly different parts of their DNA - but maybe not enough to exclude this as problematic as a definition of personhood.

The moment when it first has brain waves deserves some discussion. First of all brainwaves are just a measurement of neural activity. So let's examine the first neural activity. It is unique in the life of the individual as it is the earliest that thinking could take place. But thinking takes place in lots of animals and they are not human. This could be problematic too for making this a definition of personhood.

But I am taking a long time to get to the point.

After the beginning of neural activity/brainwaves do you support the right to life of an individual with said activity?

 

[Coyote]

I am joining this thread late so I apologize if I have missed anything pertinent.

From a solely scientific point of view one might look for a unique moment when there is more than just the physical life of the body and the unborn organism becomes a person. To do this one should probably support their position that the moment they happen to like is the one unique moment when the body becomes a person.

Again from a strictly scientific point of view the moment when it has a unique set of DNA could stand out. Everyones DNA separates them from everyone else as well as from every other creature on the planet. Even twins have slightly different parts of their DNA - but maybe not enough to exclude this as problematic as a definition of personhood.

The moment when it first has brain waves deserves some discussion. First of all brainwaves are just a measurement of neural activity. So let's examine the first neural activity. It is unique in the life of the individual as it is the earliest that thinking could take place. But thinking takes place in lots of animals and they are not human. This could be problematic too for making this a definition of personhood.

But I am taking a long time to get to the point.

After the beginning of neural activity/brainwaves do you support the right to life of an individual with said activity?

Yes, but not unconditionally.

 

[DrWho]

Rape, consentual sex where a condom failed or, yes - "inconvenience". It's her body, no one has the right to control decisions regarding it except for her. On the part of rape though - the majority of rapes go unreported.

Every cell in her body has her DNA. Any cell that does not have her DNA is not a part of her body.

Would you support laws that would let her continue to exercise control over her body but would disallow any procedures that would harm the body of someone else.

So if she wanted to alter the hormones in her body and the changes caused her to have a miscarriage that would be ok? (provided that this did not result in stopping the baby from having any brainwaves)

But if she wanted to have the limbs of some other person (even though it is inside of her) cut from it's torso and removed from in her then that would not be ok?

Would the same rules apply to me? I love peanut oil. In fact, I would love to rub it all over my body (it keeps my skin soft) . Is it OK for me to then go hang around with some people who have a deathly peanut allergy?